Media Coverage of The War
 

Is it just me or is anyone else appalled at the way the media, both on screen and in print, have reported the ongoing skermish in Afghanistan?
In the Telegraph today was a picture of some "special people" with there faces obscured "at the request of the MOD" whilst another paper showed their faces in full glory.
Even established types like the BBC seem to have scant regard for sensitive issues, showing pictures of special forces and the like.
Is the government at fault, releasing too much info?
As a service person it's really starting too annoy me, any thoughts? Did we learn nothing from the Gulf and Balkans?

It has to be realised that the media *love* a war. Careers can be made on the back of a few memorable reports and pics 'from the front' eg Max Hastings liberation of Stanley.. and embarrassingly, Simpsons attempted repeat when he liberated Kabul. Some unedited news footage showed a C4 news team screaming at and berating the Afghan guards for refusing them access to Bagrum airbase and the 'Boat people' there. Eventually the guards responded by firing at the reporters feet. Methinks [hopes] all concerned should remember that the leader of the Northern Alliance was killed just prior to Sept 11th by a suicide squad pretending to be a camera crew. Dunno how I'd feel if a bunch of guys approached aggresively carrying all sorts of large boxes and bags demanding to take some pics.

The correspondants of past times like James Cameron must be spinning in their graves at the antics of that bunch of tossers.
I loath the news media more and more as I get older.

Here we go again. Am I to expect a stream of generalised half-truths slagging off the media?

We get the media coverage we deserve, and treating journos as the enemy will never build the bridges of understanding necessary for good, positive coverage, and for journalistic understanding of the occasional need for restraint.

With regard to publishing pictures of people's faces, OK, then let the press minders make sure that the media know that they shouldn't do so and why they shouldn't - they're not serving members of the forces so often need to be persuaded, and not just told, to do something. And let's not unnecessarily classify and restrict everything, because if we do so, the occasional need and justification for legitimate censorship may be undermined, since the less well-educated journos will just think that it's the MoD up to its usual tricks.

Above all, let's classify and protect militarily sensitive information, but not information which is merely politically embarrassing to the party in power - or is that too much to hope for?

And there are some good journos out there, let's not forget - even with some of the national news organisations.

Face it Jacko, the media is one out of control monster- you speak of half truths, take a good look at your organisation. Yes there are a FEW good journalists around but mostly your profession is inhabited by those interested only in producing sensationalist bull****.
So yes, I think you can expect an attack on the media in this thread- from the people who do what their country calls upon them to do only to be constantly frustrated and insulted by inaccurate/factually incorrect `reporting`.

Jacko, my post was not put here to hold a lynching of the media, you're absolutely correct to state that there are some good journo's out there. Additionally I would not blame them because I believe, as you alluded to, that the press and media just don't understand the damage they cause. The press and media are by their very nature speculators, and in this age of 24hr news, do so without much forethought and get it fantastically wrong, eg BBC radio news headline 2 weeks ago: Concorde held at Heathrow for two hours because of an engine snag, bringing into question the future airworthiness of the fleet, utter cr@p. I was late yesterday to a task because the no2 engine of my helicopter wouldn’t start!!!!! That didn’t make the front page did it!

It just strikes me that in this campaign that the press have completely forgotten to apply any common sense to their reporting, causing untold problems for the military and a possibly unrepairable rift between the military and the press. Hopefully the paper in question from my original post might get a visit from some disgruntled special people when they return and see that their identities have been revealed in the so called “forces favourite,” then they might just understand!
:mad: ;) :mad:

Jack C
You know when the media's it when the journalists start reporting on the journalists!
Just report the facts.
Not how a certain journo struggled without running water, a wind-blown tent and a failing sat 'phone to deliver the news. Save that for the inevitable memoirs.
Get the picture, don't make the picture!

As a lead feature/editorial writer for An Phoblacht/Republican News I resent the suggestion that journalists are ever anything but honest and objective in reporting the news.

:)

Maybe the Hereford boys don't wan't any information out in the public domain until they can all rush home and get their own book deals sorted out!
;)

Jacko,
I have never directly responded to any of your posts, mainly because 1, I usually agree more than disagree with you and 2, you know so much more about aviation issues than I. I try to only comment when I am reasonably sure I know what I'm talking about.
However,

null"With regard to publishing pictures of people's faces, OK, then let the press minders make sure that the media know that they shouldn't do so and why they shouldn't - they're not serving members of the forces so often need to be persuaded, and not just told, to do something."

I find it a great shame that any journalist/reporter/photographer (as I am) can claim to not know/realise/understand the gravity and possible consequences of 'exposing' 'our special' friends to 'those' who DO NOT NEED TO KNOW!
How can the same people who must have at some stage in their lives, been proud of our forces and this elite unit willingly put these men at risk, just to 'get the story'?
It saddens me more that what was once the pride of our country which part of its fighting effectiveness was the mystique around their unit and history. Knowing that that fact alone, struck extreme terror amongst the enemy by the simple mention of 'their' name, has now become a media target and the subject of more books then the Mills and Boone series.

Has no one any morals anymore or is it just about glory, recognition and a pay cheque?
These men have families, if any one of them where captured, God knows what would happen to him, but you can guarantee two things, the press would be outside the chaps house within hours and I would bet his family wife and kids would be in all the papers the next day. The other, well, I bet the 'enemy' would love a prize like that, especially telling him what they were going to do with his wife and kids (who they now knew all about cos they read it in the daily puke)!

I have been lucky to photograph some VERY interesting things during my time as a photographer, all of these photographs were taken due to requests from various units for use for their 'own' internal training methods. I was asked because 'they' knew, no matter what, the originals would NEVER go anywhere but to them. I am very proud of that, I've made no money from it but gained much more.

I trust common sense might prevail before someone regrets their actions.
I apologise now if anyone is Pi$$ed off with my comments, I'll go away and take some more aeroplane photographs! :D

Snaps

Snaps,

You are aviation literate and defence literate and therefore understand the need for caution in these matters, Sidney Snot from the 'Daily Sketch' may have no such knowledge or experience, and may be conditioned to regard the MoD as being unhelpful and obstructive - as indeed it often is.

All,
There is certainly a need for the MoD to learn to be obstructive only when it's in the national interest, and not when it's merely in the Government's party-political interest. Procurement £*** -ups should not be covered up, for example.

The press does have major problems - not least in reporting defence issues. There is an ongoing slide towards 'tabloidisation' and generalisation which I deplore as much as anyone. Few papers have their own specialised defence correspondents, when a few years ago they'd have had one for each of the services/fields of military endeavour (land/sea/air). The quality of reporting has suffered, in my opinion.

But as readers/listeners/viewers we need to kick up a fuss when the media get it wrong (and even congratulate them when they get it right). Pick up your pen or phone or send an E-mail, since otherwise the journos and their editors won't even know that they're making themselves look like tw@ts.

Remember, the press/media can be part of our team if they are used sensitively - they don't have to be driven to be the enemy's 'useful fools'.

JN,
as always, thanks for reply, yes I agree with your last mate. However, I still believe, unless someone is a slice short of a picnic! THEY KNOW they are crossing a line we just shouldn't cross and SHOULD be B0ll0cked accordingly by whatever powers are necessary. What a shame our once awesome military might (as seen across almost every thread on PPRuNe) has come down to this eh? :( Think I'll have to start the weekend caption competition again ha!
SS

[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: Snapshot ]

I certainly abhor some media coverage, but come on guys! Listen to yourselves!

How niave is it to believe that the "MEDIA" is on your side? Where have you been for the last 40 years. The US media screwed the US military in Vietnam. Why would the UK media support UK forces?

If it's OK for the Media to print lies about the Isreali Army, it's sure as hell OK for them to print lies about the UK Army

The media is so diverse and with so many different agendas that to believe the media itself has a coherent opinion is just nuts.
Maybe the SUN want's to expose SAS men in public?
Maybe the BBC hates the Royal Marines?
Maybe they are just stupid?

The media is COMPLETELY OUT OF ANYONES CONTROL. Complaining about the Media is like complaining about the weather. POINTLESS, and your doing it, merely proves you know nothing about it. It's a condition DEAL with it!

Lo/Slo

No coherent opinion across the whole media? Absolutely right.

The media is on the other side (lies about the Israeli Army, screwed the US forces in Vietnam)? Absolutely wrong.

What lies about Israel's army, BTW? Do you mean they don't shoot unarmed children, don't use helicopter gunships to assassinate 'enemies' and aren't illegally occupying vast sections of the West Bank and aren't protecting illegal settlements?

And were the media responsible for the failure in Vietnam, or politicians, or attempting to fight an unwinnable war, with unreliable allies, using poor tactics?

And while the general media just want stories, most of the specialist Defence correspondents in "Fleet Street" come from a forces background - many seem to be ex Infantry junior officers, or from the TA. All take defence editor/reporter jobs because they are interested in defence, and are committed to reporting about it, and even for fighting for its best interests. Though some may sometimes have a funny way of showing it, I'll admit.

Max Hastings wrote a book once (actually a number of books) entitled, "Going to the Wars", in which he described his journalistic career both as a print and TV reporter.He describes an incident in Vietnam when filming an American unit, and interviewing an American officer, when several burst of incoming small arms fire flew over their heads. The Americans responded, then realised they were alone once more, and peace reigned.The cameraman, unfortunately, had also had his head down and consequently caught none of the incident on film. The directer brooded over this loss, then calmly asked the Americans if they get someone to fire a couple of rounds so that they could film the "live" action once more.

Max then proceeds to claim that the solution adopted was, and remains, very common to television. If, in the heat of the moment, it becomes too difficult catch a dramatic episode on film,then you reconstruct it for the cameras!He claims the majority of alleged combat sequences shot on film are fakes.

I suspect the current war is no different. Every one of those shots of Alliance or whoever firing at whatever were staged for the cameras.There is one tank shot in particular that has appeared on so many different scenes but from not quite the same angle, that it simply cannot be anything other than a camera shot.Believe it if you will!

Now here's a topic I have been waiting for awhile.
Jacko, your salient point of having a media we deserve is a wonderous bit of hyperbole.
The media in the West works under a self anointed mandate as protectors of the truth. Well guess what, I no more trust the media than I do the government to provide me with the truth. The first casualty of war is truth, and the media has blood on its hands.
As with any other buisness, media is in competition with other outlets for consumers. This leads to inacuracies and half truths to draw readers. Stories that are not neccessarily true or accurate. Sensationalizing stories that are based on the earliest of information, which happens to be subject to the greatest change. As an example I hold out the AA Airbus crash in New York. One network had an exclusive(their word,not mine) with an "expert" who claimed within a few hours of the crash that it was obviously a terrorist action. Expert, my a$$, this guy knew less about aviation than this lowly line pilot. Appearant to anyone with aviation experience was his incorrect use of terms and knowledge of aircraft. All of this was done to get the news we all dreaded on their network first.
Just a few weeks ago jounalists were reporting that the war effort was bogged down and that a quagmire existed at the top levels of the U.S. govt as to the direction of the efforts. I guess nothing exonorates like success.
The media is aware, but appearantly not sensitive to its appearance, as it pays lip service only. A paper here in San Diego sponsered a workshop on local access T.V. addressing the question of media responsibility. The roundtable of participants was made up of jounalists only, how ironic. Not guilty of course was the outcome.
Jacko, glad to see your predictable. I had a feeling that Israel and U.S. policy would be sniped at. Out of a diccussion of the weather you would surely bring the middle East in to it. Must admit I wasn't expecting Vietnam. By the way, tet was a tactical failure spelling the end of the VC as a viable force, but a strategic success on the world stage due in no small part to the media.
A diatribe it is, but therapeutic none the less.

Westy!

How the devil are you old boy? Long time, no speak.

Please don't get me wrong, I don't pretend that the media is perfect, my only serious contention is that it would be so easy to get press coverage that was more accurate, more reliable, and more helpful.

Re 'sniping at US policy' I don't think I have done on this thread - I was being rather UK-centric in my criticisms of how the government/MoD/Press relationship has been working in this conflict - and in fact think that the USA has done a rather better job with its media management than we have. Certainly I think that serious/specialised US media coverage has been pretty good.

Ref Israel and the Middle East: I didn't drag that one in, I was responding to a throwaway remark about media lies concerning the IDF. Vietnam, too, I'm afraid.

The media may have done you few favours in 'Nam (but then you managed it poorly, and did a poor job of getting it 'on side' - whereas you've done much better on the media hearts and minds since) but are you really blaming the press for Vietnam?

And I'll bet that as the NVA tanks and VC fighters converged on Saigon following the final humiliating and tragic US withdrawal (I took no pleasure in it then , nor do I now) I can just imagine two of their generals bemoaning the fact that:

"It's a shame we were defeated in the field, comrade."
"Yes, we never really recovered from the failure of the Tet offensive!"

There's certainly an argument that had they been left to 'get on with the job', the US military could have won in Vietnam, but to claim that US defeat is either due to, or an invention of, the media seems a tad bizarre, in my humble opinion.

Ahh, Jacko, never a dull moment!

Yes, a lot of both TA and former Regular Officers in the media. Some very good and some not. Not one that I know of is an editor or producer!

Yes, the IDF lies was a throwaway line, and knowing your anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian views ( I'm am not suggesting you are pro-Fatah - though if you are be honest. I've never met an anti-Fatah Palestinian, which would stand up and say it. :)) I have friends and relatives in the IDF and thus am emotionally involved.

Yes, the media screwed the US military in Vietnam. The NLF was near eradicated by 1969. The NVA was broken by 1970, and what was left died by US air power in 1972. Had US troop levels been maintained at the April 70 level the Spring tide offensive of 1972 would not have made the gains it had.

Can anyone seriously suggest the likes of Pilger or Arnett were un-biased or not plainly anti-American.

Nixon withdrew because of the media. The WAR was very winnable. To say otherwise is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I suggest you read Creighton Abram's biography or Lewis Sorely's Pulitzer nominated "A BETTER WAR". If you have any comment on this book, Lewis is a friend of mine. I'll pass them on.
I am commencing my second book on the Vietnam War, so I'll get back to work.
:D
Edietd cos I carnt spel!

[ 29 November 2001: Message edited by: Low and Slow ]

[ 29 November 2001: Message edited by: Low and Slow ]

Jackoniko
Still got your first post following the Twin Towers attack? You remember, the one about Israel...

You cannot hope to bribe or twist
(Thank God) the British journalist.
But, seeing what UNBRIBED he'll do
There's never any reason too!

Humbert Wolfe (1884-1940)

Not you Jacko ... but there are lots.